> "Up to 20% of nodes are already running enforcement software." No. Knots has been flat at around ~20% for many months and signaling is at around ~1% or less. Running Knots doesn't mean enforcing BIP-110, understand the difference. > "BIP 110 enforcement nodes begin building their chain exclusively on top of blocks that signal compliance." and "The network's BIP 110 enforcement nodes perceive them as canonical (longest, valid chain)." Wrong. Nodes validate and relay, they don't build anything. The chain enforcement nodes would follow only has whatever hashrate actually signals behind it, so a first mover with 5% of hashrate produces a chain running at 5% speed with no retarget for months. "Canonical" to a few thousand Knots nodes with no economic weight isn't canonical to anything that matters, and below the 55% threshold the outcome is a minority chain, not a protocol change, which will fork itself off almost immediately. > "Those blocks don't propagate as cleanly." Wrong. Non-signaling blocks propagate fine through the 92-98% of nodes that don't enforce, and miner-to-miner block relay happens over dedicated relay networks anyway, so orphan risk from a single-digit slice of listening nodes is negligible. > "Miners with flexibility start routing hashrate to the pool with the highest probability of their blocks being added to the chain" and "blocks there are guaranteed to be valid everywhere and accepted by 100% of the nodes in the network." Wrong. Hashers route on payout per hash, not node acceptance. A pool committed to BIP-110 rules forgoes data transaction fees on the majority chain so its payout is lower, and acceptance by an economically empty partition earns zero extra sats. The incentive points away from the signaling pool, not toward it. > "Current estimates peg transaction fees at around 15% of miner revenue in normal periods." versus "a declining revenue stream that's already heading toward zero anyway. There's nothing to lose by signaling." Both can't be true. If data fees are meaningful the first mover eats a real cost alone while competitors keep collecting, and if they're zero the coordination premium evaporates along with the stated urgency for the fork itself. > "if a pool signals first, they capture the coordination premium. They become the obvious, safe pool." and "the pool that moves first wins the coordination game." Already tested and failed. Barefoot Mining via Ocean produced the first signaling block on March 1, 2026 and no major pool has followed, with no observable hashrate migration toward Ocean. SegWit in 2017 activated because the economic majority backed BIP 148, and here the economic weight is on the other side with Saylor and Back publicly opposed and Core not endorsing. In this signaling period segwit was well above 30% and 110 is around ~1%. In summary this post pretty much gets everything backwards. Nodes don't build chains, miners do, and hashers chase payout not node approval. A pool that signals first isn't capturing a premium, it's taking a unilateral fee cut for a minority chain with no economic weight. Ocean tried it in March. Nobody followed. Consensus has already spoken, 110 is DOA.